Posted 4 years ago on June 25, 2013, 8:17 p.m. EST by bensdad
(8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Texas senator to stand for 13 hours in filibuster to stop bill that would close most abortion clinics Posted by Scott T. Smith / CBS12 News
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Wearing pink tennis shoes to prepare for nearly 13 consecutive hours of standing, a Democratic Texas state senator on Tuesday began her one-woman filibuster to block a GOP-led effort that would effectively close most abortion clinics across the nation's second-most populous state.

Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth began the filibuster at 11:18 a.m. CDT Tuesday. To derail a vote in the GOP-dominated Senate, she must keep speaking on the bill until midnight - the deadline for the end of the 30-day special session.

Before Davis began speaking, her chair was removed. Rules stipulate she remain standing, not lean on her desk or take any breaks - even for meals or to use the bathroom.

When combined in a state 773 miles wide and 790 miles long and with 26 million people, the measures would become the most stringent set of laws to impact the largest number of people in the nation.

In her opening remarks, Davis said she was "rising on the floor today to humbly give voice to thousands of Texans" and called Republican efforts to pass the bill a "raw abuse of power."

If the filibuster succeeds, it could also take down other measures. A proposal to fund major transportation projects as well as a bill to have Texas more closely conform with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision banning mandatory sentences of life in prison without parole for offenders younger than 18 might not get votes. Current state law only allows a life sentence without parole for 17-year-olds convicted of capital murder.

Davis was greeted by loud applause and cheers of "Go Wendy!" from hundreds of abortion-rights activists who packed the Senate. Davis motioned for them to be quiet and Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the chamber, warned the spectators against making loud outbursts.

The sound of small children crying could occasionally be heard from the gallery.

Davis said she would use up large chunks of time reading into the record testimony from women and doctors who would be impacted by the changes.

Democrats set up the filibuster after thwarting two attempts Monday by majority Republicans to bring the abortion bill to a floor vote ahead of its scheduled time.

"We want to do whatever we can for women in this state," said Sen. Kirk Watson of Austin, leader of the Senate Democrats.

The bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities and be classified as ambulatory surgical centers. Also, doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles - a tall order in rural communities.

"If this passes, abortion would be virtually banned in the state of Texas, and many women could be forced to resort to dangerous and unsafe measures," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and daughter of the late former Texas governor Ann Richards.

Democrats had warned the filibuster was coming. They chose Davis to lead the effort because of her background as a woman who had her first child when she was still a teenager.

"Democrats chose not to negotiate, and we could not get the block undone," said Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican who controls the flow of Senate legislation. He refused to declare the issue dead - but others were less optimistic.

Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said the Democrats never should have been allowed to put Republicans "in a box" and complained that many in the Senate GOP were "flying by the seat of their pants."

But the bill's bogging down began with Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who summoned lawmakers back to work immediately after the regular legislative session ended May 27 but didn't add abortion to the special session to-do list until late in the process. The Legislature can only take up issues at the governor's direction during the extra session.

Then, House Democrats succeeded in stalling nearly all night Sunday, keeping the bill from reaching the Senate until 11 a.m. Monday.

Debate in that chamber ranged from lawmakers waving coat-hangers on the floor and claiming the new rules are so draconian that women are going to be forced to head to drug war-torn Mexico to have abortions.

At one point, the bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Jodie Laubenberg of Spring, errantly suggested that emergency room rape kits could be used to terminate pregnancies.

Wendy was froced by procedure to stop a few minutes early
BUT
the anti-abotrtion vote occured too late
AND
was declared invalid
SOWENDY & the women of texas won

BUT
gov rick can call another special session to go thru this all over again

If you listen to the bill's supporters,
they say they are not anti-choice -
they just want women to be safe,
and evolution is just a theory
and we don't need the voting rights act
and Obama is a Muslim
and they have a bridge for sale

Again - I don't blame the Rs liars -
As Kyle said:

Listen, and understand.
The R is out there.
It can't be bargained with.
It can't be reasoned with.
It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear.
And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Historic victories for marriage equality gave us cause to celebrate but could not overshadow harmful attacks by the Court’s right-wing majority on voting rights and on the rights of workers and consumers as weighed against the interests of powerful corporations.

We’ll tell you what it all means, next Wednesday, July 10 at 4:00pm Eastern Time (1pm Pacific), in a special conference call telebriefing for PFAW members featuring PFAW Senior Fellow and constitutional scholar Jamie Raskin.

On the call, we’ll discuss what the decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Prop 8 mean for the fight for marriage equality moving forward.

We’ll cover the term’s other important civil rights rulings, with a special focus on the 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts that gutted an important provision of the Voting Rights Act, and what we can do to help undo some of the harm caused by that decision.

And we’ll provide examples of how the extreme pro-corporate bent of the Roberts Court was on full display, with decisions that favored drug companies and monopolists but hurt workers. These didn’t make big headlines, but they should have, given the substantial damage they did to the rights of average Americans.

Don’t miss this important discussion about the impact the Supreme Court’s 2012-13 term will have on Americans’ fundamental rights. RSVP here.

I will answer that if you can answer this: How would the nurturers rule on abortion if it were irresponsible males getting pregnant? I'm Wade versus Roe all the way but I think there is something to perspective.

No I am asking, what will happen in the future when modern medicine finally makes is possible for male to get pregnant and bear children? Will women vote to allow us to abort? If this situation of rights was reversed, I don't believe that women, being the nurturers, would extend that right to us.

1> They will build a human habitat to live at the center of the earth first
2> As a father, I resent your question that implies fathers are not nurturers
3> but to answer what is the silliest question ever posted on this forum - yes

more silly - how many female legislators have voted to make vasectomies illegal?

I don't believe this is a silly question at all. My point is that the right to abort is not an "equal" right; it is merely a right of medically enhanced happiness that I am uncertain should be extended to women and embraced as some moral high ground. I don;t believe that women would extend this right to us if we were having the babies. Also, in most cases - irresponsible pregnancy - abortion cannot be viewed with any emotional honestly as the moral high ground. More accurately I believe, we should less pusillanimously discard the political to call this spade a spade.

"medically enhanced happiness"
do you know any women who were happy about having an abortion ?
don't bother answering this question
I almost never attack POSTERS in stead of POSTS -
but you might get me to change my mind

I know single women who have had repeated abortions. In every case it was the result of a duplicity in responsible behavior. If it were behavior to be commended they would advertise and compete as in:"I had ten abortions this month." But it's not. And although I am a very understanding person, I find the whole pathology here rather frightening. This is a very sick society - pathologically ill - in which women, who own the moral high ground, are insisting we license insanity. Where does this belong? Well, certain African countries perhaps, but not in the US.

I'm a sex addict and I've never made this mistake. I am asking why women, the nurturers, would choose to wag the Flag of Abortion as some moral high ground. I am asking if this is not representative of society as a whole as pathological.

I tell ya what though... I was there to witness the illegal abortions of the late 60s and they were ugly; hence Roe Vs Wade. Even so I am uncertain that abortion, quite literally a "penultimate," as a progression of irresponsible behavior should be embraced as a moral high ground.

Obfuscation: You should be asking how many I have unintentionally inseminated. And so I will ask you: how many have you "aborted"? Why are we touting irresponsible behavior and abortion as some moral high ground? I'm not an overly compassionate person, and yet I must ask, are we really that pathological?

Not at all. I am asking you how many you have adopted. How about foster parenting? How many? See, lots of people talk about it but approximately 2% do it. The people that talk about it don't even do so much as a home study. Most of them want white newborn babies born with no drugs in their system.

You must have me confused with someone else. I am not going to ask you dumb questions like, "How about in cases of rape? Or incest? Or illness?" Nobody owes you an explanation. It's the right to choose. You don't get to play morality games with controlling reproduction rights based on how you feel about irresponsibility.

No public education, no health care, no mental health care, no lifelong care for those with mental health issues or mental disabilities, no affordable child care or inadequate child care (unavailable after 6 PM) and definitely no onsite child care at schools for those teens still in high school, no housing, lack of food security, no, no, no, no. Tantrums and pouting on irresponsible sexual behavior belong on day time talk shows.

If you have a woman that does not want to give birth and you force her to, she more than likely isn't going to change her mind afterwards. It's going to show and then you have all kinds of problems. You will pay for them. If you have a woman that cannot afford to have another child and you force her to, the financial circumstances does not change for the good.

If people did what I thought they should do, then this conversation would not be happening. That isn't the way the real world works.

Well, Girl... I am strictly Roe vs Wade. I merely pose the question, are we to tout this as some moral high ground? And also this, is acceptance not approbation? Why do we permit people to behave irresponsibly? Why don't we ostracize and publicly censure them? How is that women, the nurturers, would wag the Flag of ABORTION? Are we all really this pathological? Don't ask if I would adopt the child of another who is not permitted to abort, ask why the need. Passing the buck is not resolution.

Percentage of female head of households indicates that this is the gender that assumes the majority of the responsibility of child rearing/caring. Therefore, if you don't want an abortion don't have one.

Reproductive rights? You mean the right to fck? I'll concede women have the right to fck. But I have ulterior motives. Beyond the act, men and women have no role in reproduction; how then to afford women a reproductive "right"? Women do NOT have any rights that society by consensus is not willing to accord. And hopefully by a very wide margin or there is going to be conflict. (And look around - the tide amongst young people has changed - young males no longer agree that women have MORE rights; they believe in "equality.") I am definitely not in favor of murdering viable life. And to suggest that one should be is really sick and demented. And to find abortion in early stages anything other than repugnant is also sick and demented. This percentage of female head of households is a drain on America; it is "immoral' because the state has assumed economic fatherhood. And that, too, is a pretty sad reflection on this thing we call, civil "society." How many I adopted? You might better ask yourself how many I have abandoned as most of America - both male and female - appears to be doing. You know, the Puritan clerics themselves addressed this question 300+ years ago as colonial women, who often died in childbirth, and suffered overburden in motherhood, adopted the Native American practice of herbal remedy. And do you know what they concluded? They concluded that we were but sexual participants; that life - "re-production" - was a physiological process over which we had no control. God giveth; he also taketh away. And so they adopted a "hands off." The point is that our repugnance beyond exigent circumstance is born of human desire and its a universal repugnance. If the US ever adopts late term abortion, as a moral high ground, and it may very well do so, remember it is purposeful - its purpose is genocide through attrition.

There was a schism that occurred in the church at Leiden as well. But in terms of the reigning polity as those of influence who serve to define, I do not view them as Mayflower Pilgrims or the Plymouth Separatists; I view them as the more radical Non-Separatist. And of course, you're right, they funnel to points at London and the Isle of Wight to disembark from all over the British Isles. What I am trying to do is generate a vision of the past and there has been some question in my mind as to just how much influence Rome and her church had because I'm just not seeing it. And those items that are usually presented are relatively easy to dismiss. I don't believe Christianity, for example, arrived via Rome; I believe it was born of certain individuals later in their history who introduced it in various parts of western Europe. Even then, it incorporates a lot of indigenous belief that follows rather specific lines in terms of their focus or focal points, as the imaginary things they create and emphasize in spiritual belief, which we don't find in other parts of the Christian world. I'm not seeing Rome in the colonial village; I'm not seeing it as anything more than fodder in the intellectual history, and I'm not seeing it in the genetic evidence. To say that Rome employed non-Roman soldiers to tax the people, or as a source of revenue, is not sufficient to imply anything more than ambivalence. If you have another view of this and you can point to specific examples of Roman influence I would be interested. Because you are certainly a "wealth" of historical knowledge.

There is also some question in my mind as to how much influence is derived of the northern British Isles; is it perhaps greater than has been suspected?

I can't tell if your serious or trolling me. In the event that you are serious, I am going to need to alter my focus so let me kick this out so that I can return to medicine, abortion and attitudes later.

The only schism that occurred in Leiden was one of cash and ethnocentrism. They were not fleeing persecution. They had been there 12 years. This little myth has been perpetuated in order to overshadow earlier contacts. Found here and here and here.

Early contact via trade would have introduced more than goods but ideas. Nicholas Culpepper is a bit later than the "pilgrims". But, John Gerard is right on time. In fact, it was the "pilgrims" that introduced penny royal here.

I don't recall the nature of the schism; only that there was a North and South church; one remained, the other departed. Weren't persecuted? Some were being actively hunted. Probably one of the most direct statements that has been documented is this one: "It was the Book of Sports; the Book of Sports was the last straw" (words to that effect; this "Gentleman" eventually landed in Southold, NY). And when one is told that they cannot preach a sermon but must instead read from the Book of Sports, and when one's bible is outlawed (1624?; - after Plymouth), and people find themselves before Star Courts or locked in the Tower of London, or worse, this is "persecution." Have you forgotten the Book of Martyrs because the Pilgrim certainly did not; they brought it with them. They worshiped the Book of Martyrs as both the ever present reminder and, hopefully, a soon-to-be relict.

And I'm not sure the point of your "earlier contacts";- everybody knows the story of Squanto. The earliest documentation that references a continental discovery dates to the 1400s and it was an Englishman named John Day. The point is we were visiting the coast long before Squanto; what is your point?

The word "ethnocentric" is a word of fiction, a phantasm, in that philosophically there is no such thing. I don't have time but I can logically prove that. It's just one of the words added to the repertoire of those who seek to empower against others. This phantasm does not and cannot exist.

We all know that Christianity is a collection of other religions; we can actually follow the evolution of monotheism. Certainly Norse is a part of this but only one part; - what influenced Celtic Christianity? What influenced the Christianity of the Brython? Because the extant superstition, or former belief, that was both incorporated and denied is direct evidence that this is not a Romish Christianity.

I'm not suggesting there was no contact with Rome, nor am I suggesting that cultural transference requires mating; I am saying that I believe that where force failed it was met with ambivalence. And that much of what has been traditionally presented as factual history is nothing more than assumed fiction. And that we, as their descendants (obviously not all consider themselves cultural descendants), should dedicate ourselves to scholarly research, to questions unanswered, and begin to teach truth. And not the pseudo intellectual bullshit I hear emanating from others today.

Also, you should probably "step away" from the website. And crack a book once in while because you will not find brilliance or profound on the Internet. And I think you're capable.

Books I have. They are in boxes. I just moved. I am trying to not to pull them out. My preference is to back up my shit and if it's available on line, it's phenomenal. The Book of Martyrs is political propaganda. You know this. Why in the hell would you use it?

It all came from Rome (and Alexandria and Constantinople and Antioch). It's a death cult. Just like the preceding and other death cults of it's time. It's also all about martyrdom..........fictional martyrdom. There's nothing particularly smashing about Celtic Christianity. The hype came much later which again...............is political propaganda. Nobody ran to Christianity. Ever. This was a top down religion every where it went.

The point was that there was no one pure thought that came with the pilgrims and early colonists. They were all about power and cash and exploitation. Piety my ass.

Ethnocentric. It's a word. It has a definition. I'm not a "cultural descendent." I am an actual descendant..

Rome never conquered the north of Britain from which much of America is derived. And I don't believe it ever fully conquered religiously beyond political expedience either. Henry the VIII-th is the proof of that.

Our courts, our "rights of women," especially as relates to divorce, is proof of that Rome never conquered these people. Divorce is interesting, too, because in Great Britain no one other than nobility married, let alone divorced; from where is this colonial belief derived?

Retained by the people... that is the point; abortion is not enumerated and it not retained as a free, unalienable, "individual" right - it is contingent upon the needs and concerns of the state.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Mayflower passengers and place of origin located here
You will notice that we have many places of origin and, of course, not everyone was a pilgrim . Leiden is mentioned because they originally went to Amsterdam thinking that was going to be the shizzle and then Leiden when it wasn't and then not-Virginia.

Rome is out at about 383 CE. Rome had a state religion but they didn't care and just absorbed religions from any other lands into their own. So, you have all kinds of religions (Isis/Bacchus/Minerva/Cybele) showing up in Britain. This includes Christianity when Constantine the Great arrived on the scene and decided to do a little power play.

There was a schism that occurred in the church at Leiden as well. But in terms of the reigning polity as those of influence who serve to define, I do not view them as Mayflower Pilgrims or the Plymouth Separatists; I view them as the more radical Non-Separatist. And of course, you're right, they funnel to points at London and the Isle of Wight to disembark from all over the British Isles. What I am trying to do is generate a vision of the past and there has been some question in my mind as to just how much influence Rome and her church had because I'm just not seeing it. And those items that are usually presented are relatively easy to dismiss. I don't believe Christianity, for example, arrived via Rome; I believe it was born of certain individuals later in their history who introduced it in various parts of western Europe. Even then, it incorporates a lot of indigenous belief that follows rather specific lines in terms of their focus or focal points, as the imaginary things they create and emphasize in spiritual belief, which we don't find in other parts of the Christian world. I'm not seeing Rome in the colonial village; I'm not seeing it as anything more than fodder in the intellectual history, and I'm not seeing it in the genetic evidence. To say that Rome employed non-Roman soldiers to tax the people, or as a source of revenue, is not sufficient to imply anything more than ambivalence. If you have another view of this and you can point to specific examples of Roman influence I would be interested. Because you are certainly a "wealth" of historical knowledge.

There is also some question in my mind as to how much influence is derived of the northern British Isles; is it perhaps greater than has been suspected?

All is well providing you are drinking a beer with your Frat brothers and I am quite sure that you will find your young males all about how their rights have been impeded on. Take it to an Oprah like show and you can sit around and toss moral platitudes around.

You know, abortions have been performed since antiquity. The earliest known recipe is from the Ebers Papyrus. That was fun. Almost as fun as listening to your rantings of someone who is choosing to live outside of reality. Keep it with your drinking buddies.

Reproductive rights do not rest upon individuals; no "right" ever rests upon an individual. I do not drink beer; I have never unintentionally impregnated and I have never abandoned a child. But what makes you think there is a responsibility on the part of those responsible to provide care for the children of those who are irresponsible? It is our moral responsibility? They cannot care for themselves so we must care for them? You have to understand, too, that I fully support Roe vs Wade. In fact, I see abortion as a "good." I wish far more women in America had regular abortions. But I don't see that a moral high ground; I see it as the lesser of two evils in a very sick society which has created layer after layer of complete bullshit as fiction to justify its hubris, its insanity, and its dystopia. The question in the future will not be if we abort; the question will be who we abort - will they be white, black, or hispanic? Will they be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim? Will they be those predisposed to genetic difference, deficiency, or just general malice? Will the medical or mental health or records of malice we ourselves leave behind become the determinants of what genes move forward into the future? Because believe me population control is coming to our world eventually in one form or another. You must also recognize that "empathy" is a lie, a falsehood; civil society is but little more than the economic means by which we accommodate ourselves amongst higher population density. And it is now on a path of destruction. Also... while Ebers Papyrus may be interesting, we must also acknowledge our place in this world - and you believe our ancestors had contact with the Egyptians, how? How has anything, other than trade, that has ever come out of the east been of any cultural significance whatsoever, to shape the foundation of a mindset? We are a separate people and we always will be - change in the future does not equate to a revisit of time.

China, yes, as trade through the Philippines. Spanish silver and sweet potatoes to China, yes; do you remember the rubber tree plant? (Late 1950s or 60s, I think - a song called "High Hopes.")

Egypt, no; Rome and Greece, hardly. That was precisely my point.

We arrive at the here and now via a cultural line of decent, an intellectual line of decent, and we cannot revisit the past; we can attach new interests, invite new sources of influence but at the core we are uniquely American because of a rather specific path, which at that time had no real Egyptian exposure on any influential level. (Also, I must wonder, do you really envision the colonial as an international tourist traveler?)

Reproductive rights were not incorporated, or afforded, the individual against the state; whatever gave you that idea? (In fact, they could not have been without violating that which is presented in the preamble of the Declaration, right? OK, ok, so you can say we are "endowed by our Creator" with life, only if we are possessed of life, or born into life, and I would buy that, to say, ok, maybe the authors would have agreed with you - to have a right of life, you must first be possessed of life (having avoided the scalpel). But even so I do not find abortion anywhere in the Constitution as an enumerated right.

In any case, Roe vs Wade/ Doe vs Bolton/ determined that it was a "right" (as a negotiated item) contingent upon two state concerns: prenatal life and the health of the woman; have you forgotten that? It is not that women have a free or unalienable right; it's not an individual right - "we," have a compelling interest, as part and parcel of cultural identity, which "we" in desperation entrusted with the court to determine and the state to force-law or legislate.

Are you planning to amend the Constitution, to declare this a right granted by the people? And what message would that send to the world, that stomping out the fetus at will is "good"?

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. Rome never conquered Britain. Got it. Be sure to let them know as there seems to be some small amount of confusion on the whys and wherefores Boudica burned London to the ground.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Rome never conquered the north of Britain from which much of America is derived. And I don't believe it ever fully conquered religiously beyond political expedience either. Henry the VIII-th is the proof of that.

Our courts, our "rights of women," especially as relates to divorce, is proof of that Rome never conquered these people. Divorce is interesting, too, because in Great Britain no one other than nobility married, let alone divorced; from where is this colonial belief derived?

Retained by the people... that is the point; abortion is not enumerated and it not retained as a free, unalienable, "individual" right - it is contingent upon the needs and concerns of the state.

Reproductive rights do not rest upon individuals; no "right" ever rests upon an individual.

Reproductive rights, whether or not you agree, are left to the individual. In fact, you are familiar with this concept as all of the rights that have been incorporated are individual against the States.

You are also familiar with the social contract theory.

The morality that you are looking for is found on daytime talk shows.

On the one hand, it's not your responsibility. On the other hand you inject we into who will be aborted. Not your business. That isn't the question that you have anything to do with. It's a decision that is made at the individual level. Your argument becomes even more ludicrous when you worry about future medical records...........what will they say? Further, when recognizing that you may be in error you make the claim to be a separate case.

Our ancestors had contact not just with the Egyptians but with China as well. In fact, there were a good bit of empires at play and Alexandria was known as a Greek city. But, if you refuse to see any of that than you can find aborticants via Rome and Greece. They were not the only source. They are found everywhere and through out history because pregnancy is not a new phenomenon. By the way, just as a heads up, you know those Seven Wonders of the World? Those were the tourist destinations of yore.

China, yes, as trade through the Philippines. Spanish silver and sweet potatoes to China, yes; do you remember the rubber tree plant? (Late 1950s or 60s, I think - a song called "High Hopes.")

Egypt, no; Rome and Greece, hardly. That was precisely my point.

We arrive at the here and now via a cultural line of decent, an intellectual line of decent, and we cannot revisit the past; we can attach new interests, invite new sources of influence but at the core we are uniquely American because of a rather specific path, which at that time had no real Egyptian exposure on any influential level. (Also, I must wonder, do you really envision the colonial as an international tourist traveler?)

Reproductive rights were not incorporated, or afforded, the individual against the state; whatever gave you that idea? (In fact, they could not have been without violating that which is presented in the preamble of the Declaration, right? OK, ok, so you can say we are "endowed by our Creator" with life, only if we are possessed of life, or born into life, and I would buy that, to say, ok, maybe the authors would have agreed with you - to have a right of life, you must first be possessed of life (having avoided the scalpel). But even so I do not find abortion anywhere in the Constitution as an enumerated right.

In any case, Roe vs Wade/ Doe vs Bolton/ determined that it was a "right" (as a negotiated item) contingent upon two state concerns: prenatal life and the health of the woman; have you forgotten that? It is not that women have a free or unalienable right; it's not an individual right - "we," have a compelling interest, as part and parcel of cultural identity, which "we" in desperation entrusted with the court to determine and the state to force-law or legislate.

Are you planning to amend the Constitution, to declare this a right granted by the people? And what message would that send to the world, that stomping out the fetus at will is "good"?